KmDubya
King
Many of the people here are advocating for either measured response or surgical strikes against only the ones we identify as being responsible. In my opinion I think that this is a dangerous precedent to work with because it would make war more probable for the following reasons:
A measured response as opposed to a full out overwhelming strike gives rise to the belief that an exchange of nuclear weapons would be survivable and thus make it more likely to occur. If the exchange of missiles is few than the losses can be accepted. For example if India knows that Pakistan only has enough missiles to take out five or six cities at the cost of a hundred million it might determine that that is an acceptable loss in order to rid themselves of Pakistan for ever. If instead Pakistan had the capacity to take out all or most of India then peace is more likely as the potential cost of war is too large to bear.
War where civilians are spared the outcomes of their political leaders choices can also lead to war being more palatable and thus more likely. In WWII Germany was bombed into submission, Dressden, Berlin, pretty much everywhere was a smoking ruin. Contrast the WWII scenario with Iraq. In a mere three weeks the Iraqi military was effectively neutralized, command and control was destroyed as well as the chain of supply but the loss of life was comparatively low especially among the civilians. There were no carpet bombing wholesale slaughter where the survivors were thankful to be spared, instead it was quick and surgical. The unintended side effect was that the people did not feel that they had lost and this helped fuel the insurgency which has killed more people than the initial invasion.
It is like a fight on the playground if one kid does a slick Aikido joint lock and stops the fight in the first ten seconds the other kid does not think he really lost and is apt to fight again. Instead if the kid gets knocked to the ground, mounted and beaten until he cries for his mommy, he is not going to ever want to fight this kid again.
Look at how the US uses drones, no risk of American casualties and only the bad guys (mostly) get killed. War like this does not have the downsides of massive collateral damage and thus would be more palatable to the general populace. We've been fighting like this for twelve years now under Bush's cowboy administration as well as under Obama's Nobel Peace Prize winning administration with no indication of any slowdown with regards to the use of drones. War like this removes the potential of suffering your own casualties which is one of the big deterrents to war. This cleaner, kinder style of war makes it more apt to occur in my opinion.
A measured response as opposed to a full out overwhelming strike gives rise to the belief that an exchange of nuclear weapons would be survivable and thus make it more likely to occur. If the exchange of missiles is few than the losses can be accepted. For example if India knows that Pakistan only has enough missiles to take out five or six cities at the cost of a hundred million it might determine that that is an acceptable loss in order to rid themselves of Pakistan for ever. If instead Pakistan had the capacity to take out all or most of India then peace is more likely as the potential cost of war is too large to bear.
War where civilians are spared the outcomes of their political leaders choices can also lead to war being more palatable and thus more likely. In WWII Germany was bombed into submission, Dressden, Berlin, pretty much everywhere was a smoking ruin. Contrast the WWII scenario with Iraq. In a mere three weeks the Iraqi military was effectively neutralized, command and control was destroyed as well as the chain of supply but the loss of life was comparatively low especially among the civilians. There were no carpet bombing wholesale slaughter where the survivors were thankful to be spared, instead it was quick and surgical. The unintended side effect was that the people did not feel that they had lost and this helped fuel the insurgency which has killed more people than the initial invasion.
It is like a fight on the playground if one kid does a slick Aikido joint lock and stops the fight in the first ten seconds the other kid does not think he really lost and is apt to fight again. Instead if the kid gets knocked to the ground, mounted and beaten until he cries for his mommy, he is not going to ever want to fight this kid again.
Look at how the US uses drones, no risk of American casualties and only the bad guys (mostly) get killed. War like this does not have the downsides of massive collateral damage and thus would be more palatable to the general populace. We've been fighting like this for twelve years now under Bush's cowboy administration as well as under Obama's Nobel Peace Prize winning administration with no indication of any slowdown with regards to the use of drones. War like this removes the potential of suffering your own casualties which is one of the big deterrents to war. This cleaner, kinder style of war makes it more apt to occur in my opinion.
